Re: Is the fourth time is the charm?

From: John Clark (
Date: Fri May 19 2000 - 09:53:50 MDT

 m <> Wrote:

> in one sense the original IS the one-celled zygote, period.

Thank you for a straight answer, but why period? Why stop there,
why not go back until Harvey's parents were one celled zygotes?
But hey, it's your definition, if you want to call that "The Original"
who am I to argue. Now that I at least know what you're talking about
I can form conclusions based on that. I conclude that the concept of
"The Original" is trivial, dull, and utterly useless.

>If you don't like this, I assume it is because you don't accept the
>zygote as being "Harvey"

Oh it might have a weak claim to the Harvey title but certainly nothing
unique, others would have a stronger claim to the throne. I suspect that
even Harvey, that is the fellow who writes on this list, might agree with
me on that point.

> I assume this is because you (reasonably) value the sense of identity


>and don't believe that the zygote would be capable of this.

Do you?

>BUT the said zygote would (if it were lucky) grow up to be a conscious Harvey.

And the zygote might grow up and have conscious grandchildren, but they're
not conscious now and neither is the zygote.

>The continuity of the space-time line seems to me to be the only
>reasonable standard.

The space-time line of what? Yesterday's potatoes that's what, because that's
what you're made of.

>The copies may well have consciousness and continiuty of *memories* with
>the original they came from, and value their sense of identity/consciousness,


>This still doesn't mean that they ARE the original.

I don't want to be "The Original", I don't want to be like that stupid zygote.

>Yes but the pattern of the ensemble is reasonably constant,

The difference between a zygote and the fellow writing this post seems
rather large to me.

>and the majority of atoms will remain at each stage for what it's worth

In the first place that depends on the arbitrary definition of how long
"each stage" is, so the statement is not useful. In the second place it
implies that there are special John Clark hydrogen atoms and special
Harvey Newstrom hydrogen atoms which renders the statement silly.

          John K Clark

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:25 MDT